Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09/24/2015 06:52 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote:
> If a printed map is a database

A printed map is not a database for us; the German court opinion you
quote has been mentioned in the run-up to the license change but it
didn't convince us.

A database has to consist of things "arranged in a systematic or
methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other
means". While it is obviously possible for a court to stretch this
definition to printed maps, most people find the idea absurd.

> (refer to Landgericht München I, 21 O
> 14294/00) and we treat it as a produced work, why can't another database
> not be a produced work as well? For example a database used for routing
> or a database used for (reverse)geocoding.

A database that you create by repeatedly extracting snippets of
information from OSM - the results of your geocoding query - is
*clearly* a database according to the "arranged in a systematic or
methodical way..." definition.

Your logic seems to be that essentially because a court somewhere has
once said that 1 = 0 in some cases, anything goes!

> I'm out from this legal discussion. And I recommend all not having any
> degree of legals and experience with database right also not to
> participate in this discussion any more. It's all opinions. But for
> legal discussions opinions don't count much (maybe unless you are the
> judge).

I don't think that we should switch off our rational thinking just
because there are people with a law degree.

But you are right in that this discussion goes much too far into the
"what would a lawyer say" direction. We don't need that - the subject is
quite appropriately "When *should* ODbL apply to Geocoding". If we as a
project find an answer to that, then we can let lawyers fix (or
interpret) the license so that it delivers what we want.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Stephan Knauss]

Frederik Ramm writes:


geocoding results seem like
a produced work to me. I believe that I am decorating other open data
with the results of a geocoder that contains sufficient art to make it
not derived, but produced.


Our usual definition of produced work doesn't look at how much art there
is, but whether something is a database.


If a printed map is a database (refer to Landgericht München I, 21 O  
14294/00) and we treat it as a produced work, why can't another database  
not be a produced work as well? For example a database used for routing or  
a database used for (reverse)geocoding.


ODBL defines it as:
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or  
sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the  
Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative  
Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database.


It gives examples of works, but IMHO does not limit it to such.
So if you produce a database by using the whole or a substantial part of  
the contents then you have a produced work.


If you copy extensive listings of job offers from a newspaper you did not  
violate database rights (München 6 U 2812/00). If you copy the music charts  
listing, you did (München 29 U 4008/02).


The nuances of when something is a database and when not is much different  
in a legal sense than what the typical technician would assume.


I'm out from this legal discussion. And I recommend all not having any  
degree of legals and experience with database right also not to participate  
in this discussion any more. It's all opinions. But for legal discussions  
opinions don't count much (maybe unless you are the judge).



Stephan

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.09.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
> 
> 
> I would hesitate to apply this rule for making a selection that can not
> be repeated ("select reverse geocoding results for this non-public list
> of coordinates and store them in my non-public derived database").


I had understood that a database containing the list of coordinates would have 
to be made public (on request), just not what they were standing for/how they 
were gathered.



> 
> Whether something is useful to us or not is not a factor in determining
> where ODbL share-alike applies. This is not great - I'd love a license
> that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
> everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)


it would also open a can of worms to get to a definition of what is stuff we 
are interested in.


cheers 
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09/24/2015 10:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> and another with exactly these coordinates and their
>> OSM reverse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
>> and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request
> 
> Does he even have to? Isn't this covered by the trivial transformations rule? 

I think the trivial transformations rule would cover use cases where a
selection is made from OSM intrinsic properties ("everything with the
tag X"). This can easily be repeated by everyone.

I would hesitate to apply this rule for making a selection that can not
be repeated ("select reverse geocoding results for this non-public list
of coordinates and store them in my non-public derived database").

The case where the selection criteria are external to OSM, but publicly
available, is somewhere in between. I would always recommend erring on
the side of caution.

> In particular he doesn't add anything to OSM that isn't already in it, so 
> there's nothing to share that would be useful to us.

Whether something is useful to us or not is not a factor in determining
where ODbL share-alike applies. This is not great - I'd love a license
that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Simon Poole]

My understanding of the trivial transformation guideline is that the
data in the nominatim instance would fall under it (so you are not
obliged to supply somebody that  asks with a dump of your nominatim
database or your osm2pgsql rendering database etc etc, you can simply
point to the original data), not necessarily results extracted from it.

Some effort was spent during discussion of a potential metadata
guideline to use usefulness and/or interestingness as a criteria for
when SA applies, however that is IMHO a hopeless dead end, so yes
sometimes SA is going to be attached to stuff that nobody is ever going
to want to reuse.

Simon

Am 24.09.2015 um 10:17 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Am 24.09.2015 um 10:00 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
>>
>> and another with exactly these coordinates and their
>> OSM reverse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
>> and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request
>
> Does he even have to? Isn't this covered by the trivial transformations rule? 
> It might be technically complex, but as he used Nominatim, which is available 
> as open source for everyone, the mere application of an unmodified Nominatim 
> seems trivial.
>
> In particular he doesn't add anything to OSM that isn't already in it, so 
> there's nothing to share that would be useful to us.
>
> cheers 
> Martin 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.09.2015 um 10:00 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
> 
> and another with exactly these coordinates and their
> OSM reverse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
> and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request


Does he even have to? Isn't this covered by the trivial transformations rule? 
It might be technically complex, but as he used Nominatim, which is available 
as open source for everyone, the mere application of an unmodified Nominatim 
seems trivial.

In particular he doesn't add anything to OSM that isn't already in it, so 
there's nothing to share that would be useful to us.

cheers 
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Frederik Ramm]

Randy,

On 09/23/2015 07:18 PM, Randy Meech wrote:
> 3. The database you have created is partly derived from OSM (as far as
> "this address is at location lon=x, lat=y" is concerned).
> 
> Actually I mis-spoke a bit (sorry, it was several years ago). The
> lat/lngs are actually from state agencies, although I did reverse
> geocoding with Nominatim and store the results in the database.

So you're not using the OSM-derived part for any computation ("which one
is nearest"), but just as an additional display for the user.

In your use case, you could conceivably do the reverse geocoding on the
fly when the user clicks on "view details", rather than do it for all
addresses in advance. Then your database would never contain anything
from OSM.

If your use case were, as I first assumed, that you needed the OSM
coordinates to even offer your service (compute distances), then
on-the-fly would not be an option, technically.

Not that this is particularly relevant in terms of the license but I
think it is an interesting distinction between the two use cases.

> geocoding results seem like
> a produced work to me. I believe that I am decorating other open data
> with the results of a geocoder that contains sufficient art to make it
> not derived, but produced.

Our usual definition of produced work doesn't look at how much art there
is, but whether something is a database. If we did ask "how much art is
there", I'd be tempted to say there's considerably more art in reverse
geocding than there is in forward geocoding.

> Curious about others' thoughts here -- I do think this is an important
> topic to figure out and I'm happy to be a guinea pig for this.

If you came to me with your use case and asked "what would you have me
do to be sure I don't run afoul of the license", I would recommend that
you have two databases or two database tables, one with your POIs and
their coordinates, and another with exactly these coordinates and their
OSM reverse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request. I
would also tell you that it is very unlikely for anyone to request the
data in the first place.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

[Simon Poole]

Come on Alex.

If you accidentally publicly use a produced work or a derivative
database that is linked somehow with sensitive data and if somebody
actually asks you for the underlying data and if for legal (privacy) or
business reasons you can't hand out the non-OSM data part (lots of ifs),
you are in violation of the licence terms and you cease to have a
licence for the OSM derived data in question. However you can reinstate
your rights under the licence by rectifying the situation (stopping to
use the data publicly), which shouldn't be an issue since, as you
stipulate, the use is accidental.

Simon

Am 24.09.2015 um 00:32 schrieb Alex Barth:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole  > wrote:
>
> it might actually force
> such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding for public
> vs in-house use.
>
>
> This suggestion has come up before and I'd like to flag that this is
> impractical. No organization would and should take the risk that a
> potential future (accidental) publication of a private OpenStreetMap
> based work could jeopardize sensitive data. The risk is significant as
> even the publication of a Produced Work can bring the share alike
> stipulations of the ODbL to bear.
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk